[Tagging] Is it OK to consider and describe landcover=water as deprecated?

Mateusz Konieczny matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Wed Mar 10 07:33:54 UTC 2021

Mar 6, 2021, 09:57 by marc_marc at mailo.com:

> Hello,
> Le 06.03.21 à 07:47, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit :
>> landcover=water is a tag
>> duplicating more widely used tags such
>> as natural=water, waterway=riverbank etc
> Just because there are tags describing landuse + tags
> describing leisure activities + "amenity tag" that together
> cover (or not) all possible uses of a water surface,
> does not mean that they are tags with the same meaning.
Is there any case where natural=water can not be added
and adding landcover=water would be OK and useful?

If for swimming pools areas someone is adding landcover=water
- why it would be superior to adding natural=water?

What is gained from having a new tag here?

> The question seems to me to be badly put, it would be like
> saying "should one who wants to add a shop also be obliged
> to add the building"
It would be rather equivalent to 
"I see object=building tag, can we mark it as deprecated"

What is the benefit of landcover=water over using natural=water?
Is there any? 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210310/8d52f2ea/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list